Eric Bavier <ericbav...@gmail.com> skribis: > Ludovic Courtès writes: > >> Eric Bavier <ericbav...@gmail.com> skribis: >> >>> Ludovic Courtès writes:
[...] >> Of course it would be good to use the full DAG. For that we’d need >> something that uses ‘fold-packages’ to get the “entry points” of the >> DAG, and then traverses it all to also get the private packages. >> >> From there we could perhaps build a ‘fold-package*’ that would iterate >> on the whole DAG. > > Updated patch attached. It defines a `fold-package*', and uses it in > `guix refresh' to get all packages of a given name. Nice! > This patch may need to go in core-updates. Why? > From 1d22367e0806cea004631e22a782b7db3ffe65b0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Eric Bavier <bav...@member.fsf.org> > Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:46:09 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] guix: refresh: Use bags. > > * guix/packages.scm (bag-direct-inputs): New procedure. > * gnu/packages.scm (package-dependencies): Use it. > (fold-packages*): New procedure. > * guix/scripts/refresh.scm (guix-refresh)[list-dependent]: Use it. [...] > --- a/guix/scripts/refresh.scm > +++ b/guix/scripts/refresh.scm > @@ -232,16 +232,27 @@ update would trigger a complete rebuild." > (with-error-handling > (cond > (list-dependent? > - (let* ((rebuilds (map package-full-name > - (package-covering-dependents packages))) > + (let* ((packages* > + ;; Need to consider private packages, which are not found by > + ;; find-packages-by-name > + (fold-packages* > + (let ((package-names (map package-name packages))) > + (lambda (p r) > + (if (find (cut string=? (package-name p) <>) > + package-names) > + (cons p r) > + r))) > + '())) > + (rebuilds (map package-full-name > + (package-covering-dependents packages*))) Could you move the computation of the package list to a different procedure? Possibly merging it with the existing expression that computes ‘packages’ and which is already quite big. > I'm also attaching the script I used to produce the package dependency > count table I included previously. With this updated patch, the numbers > look much more reasonable and complete for the "core" packages. > > > > And the revised output, if anyone doesn't want to take the time to run > the script themselves. > > binutils-bootstrap-0......................... 974 (99.39%) > bootstrap-binaries-0......................... 974 (99.39%) > file-5.19.................................... 974 (99.39%) > findutils-4.4.2.............................. 974 (99.39%) > diffutils-3.3................................ 974 (99.39%) Looks good. It would be nice to show this info on the output of build-aux/list-packages.scm (used to build <https://www.gnu.org/software/guix/package-list.html>.) Thanks, Ludo’.
